Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Alan S Kliger

Publications and source records attributed to Alan S Kliger.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

End-stage renal disease measures of quality.

During the past 35 years, there has been a geometric expansion of the population of patients receiving chronic dialysis therapy in the United States. As the size and associated costs of the dialysis population have grown, there has been a consistent and evolving emphasis on measuring and improving the quality of dialysis care. These efforts, aided by robust data collection vehicles, have translated into defined clinical performance measures; nevertheless, morbidity and mortality rates remain high for the dialysis population. Recently, attention has focused on whether improved outcomes could be obtained by paying physicians and dialysis providers on the basis of quality metrics. The feasibility, value, pitfalls, and appropriate quality metrics in a "payment-for-quality" program for dialysis care are currently under vigorous discussion.

Hospitalization↗
PubMed2006

Patient safety in the dialysis facility.

Medical mistakes that harm patients have occurred in dialysis facilities, just as they have been reported to cause death in hospitals. A plan to recognize and prevent mistakes includes several elements. (1) Establish a culture of safety, where safe practices are a priority and reporting of adverse events and 'near misses' is encouraged in a non-punitive environment. (2) Redesign processes of care to minimize patient falls, medication errors, bleeding from vascular accesses, dialyzer reuse errors and other problems. (3) Perform root cause analyses of adverse events and 'near misses'. (4) Involve patients in safety efforts, including maintaining an accurate, up-to-date medication list. (5) Dialysis facilities should function as high-reliability organizations, focusing on the possibility of failures, expecting to make errors, training to recognize and recover from them and making system reforms following root cause analyses.

Hemodialysis Units, Hospital↗
PubMed2004

Patient ratings of dialysis care with peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis.

CONTEXT: In light of conflicting evidence of differential effects of dialysis modality on survival, patient experience becomes a more important consideration in choosing between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient satisfaction with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in a cohort of patients who have recently begun dialysis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey at enrollment in a prospective inception cohort study of patients who recently started dialysis at 37 dialysis centers participating in the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for End-stage Renal Disease (CHOICE) study, a national multicenter study of dialysis outcomes, from October 1995 to June 1998. PATIENTS: Of 736 enrolled incident dialysis patients, 656 (89%) returned a satisfaction questionnaire after an average of 7 weeks of dialysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Data collected from a patient-administered questionnaire including 3 overall ratings and 20 items rating specific aspects of dialysis care. RESULTS: Patients receiving peritoneal dialysis were much more likely than those receiving hemodialysis to give excellent ratings of dialysis care overall (85% vs 56%, respectively; relative probability, 1.46 [95% confidence interval, 1.31-1.57]) and significantly more likely to give excellent ratings for each specific aspect of care rated. The 3 items with the greatest differences were in the domain of information provided (average of information items: peritoneal dialysis [69% excellent] vs hemodialysis [30% excellent]). The smallest differences were in ratings of accuracy of information from the nephrologist, response to pain, amount of fluid removed, and staff availability in an emergency. Adjustment for patient age, race, education, health status, marital status, employment status, distance from the center, and time since starting dialysis did not reduce the differences between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: After several weeks of initiating dialysis, patients receiving peritoneal dialysis rated their care higher than those receiving hemodialysis. These findings indicate that clinicians should give patients more information about the option of peritoneal dialysis.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Renal transplant recipients over aged 60 have diminished immune activity and a low risk of rejection.

Strict consideration of the renal transplant candidate's chronologic age is generally supplanted by more subjective reflection on his (her) physiologic state. In the US, patients over 64 years old represented 9.0% of renal transplant recipients in the year 2000, yet little prior experience is available with which to guide the management of geriatric patients. Two hundred and forty six consecutive recipients of primary kidney transplants at the Yale-New Haven Organ Transplant Center between 1990 and 1995 were included in an outcome analysis. Age at transplantation ranged from 2 to 68 years; the study group consisted of the 16 (6.5%) over age 60. The immunosuppressive protocol was uniform for all patients. There was a disproportionately high use of cadaveric organs by older patients; only 1/16 (6.3%) received a living donor kidney. The overall rate of rejection within the first 90 days was 6.7% of cadaveric recipients over 60 versus 37.6% of younger recipients, P=0.001. Actual patient survival rates at 6 years were 100% of patients younger than 11 years versus 69% (11/16) of those older than 60 years. Death censored 5 year graft survival was 100% in older patients versus 85% among the younger patients. The older and younger patients received quantitatively equivalent immunosuppression, but acute rejection was uncommon in the former (6%) versus the younger cohort (34%). It seems logical to consider whether older renal transplant recipients may benefit from a less aggressive immunosuppression strategy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Depression and its association with peritonitis in long-term peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Depression is the most common psychological disorder among patients with end-stage renal disease and has been associated with mortality in patients maintained on hemodialysis therapy. Peritonitis is the leading cause of technique failure among long-term peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This prospective study is designed to examine the relationship between depression and peritonitis. METHODS: All patients on long-term PD therapy in our unit between January 1, 1997, and January 31, 2002, completed a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) assessment at 6-month intervals. BDI scores were analyzed 2 ways. First, patients were placed into either group I (BDI score < 10) or group II (BDI score > or = 11) and were reclassified based on subsequent scores. Second, multivariable analysis was performed looking at initial BDI score as a risk factor for peritonitis, adjusting for age older than 65 years, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and race. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled, and 281 individual BDI assessments were completed. There was a significantly greater incidence of diabetes and coronary artery disease in group II. Rates for overall and gram-positive peritonitis were significantly greater in group II patients compared with group I patients. Using Cox regression, only BDI score of 11 or greater was associated with the development of peritonitis (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 6.0). CONCLUSION: There is an association between BDI score of 11 or greater and the development of peritonitis. Whether treatment of depression can impact on the rate of peritonitis remains to be examined.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Treatment of osteoporosis and osteopenia in long-term renal transplant patients with alendronate.

Bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone-turnover were evaluated in a 2-year study in 58 long-term renal transplant recipients with good renal function. In the first year of study, data were collected and patients with osteoporosis and parameters of high bone turnover were classified as being at high risk for on-going bone loss (Group A; n = 29). Patients with lesser degrees of bone loss or without biochemical parameters of high bone turnover were followed longitudinally (Group B; n = 29). Group A patients were then placed on alendronate 10mg/day and both groups were followed for an additional year. Changes in regional BMD and bone-turnover markers between the first and second year within each group were analyzed using paired tests. BMD in Group A, which had declined at the lumbar spine (- 1.6 +/- 0.5%) and total femur (-1.5 +/- 0.4%) during the first year of the study, increased on alendronate therapy at both the lumbar spine (+3.4 +/- 0.6%, p = 0.001) and total femur (+1.6 +/- 0.6%, p <0.001). These patients also experienced a significant decline in levels of serum alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, urinary levels of deoxypyridinoline and pyridinoline. In contrast, neither BMD nor biochemical markers changed significantly over 2 years in Group B. The current results demonstrate that renal transplant patients with osteoporosis and biochemical parameters of high bone turnover are at continued risk for bone loss. Therapy with a bisphosphonate can reverse this bone loss and even increase bone mass in these patients. Whether patients with lesser degrees of bone loss and/or patients without parameters of high bone turnover can also benefit from bisphosphonate therapy deserves further study.

Alendronate↗
PubMedDate not supplied

APD in the elderly.

Few elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). Among dialysis patients >or=65 years of age reported by the U.S. Renal Data System (USRDS), the percentage treated with chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD) is lower than in any other age group. To evaluate the effectiveness of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) in the elderly, we compared several outcome measures in cohorts of different ages maintained on APD. The outcome measures we examined included mortality and technique failure rates, peritonitis rates, outcomes of peritonitis, and quality of life measures. We found that while patients >or=65 years of age have a higher mortality rate than younger patients, technique failure rates, overall peritonitis rates, and most quality of life measures are not different than for younger patients. However, patients >or=65 years of age have higher gram-negative peritonitis rates and lower scores on the physical component score of the SF-36 than younger patients. The present study suggests that APD is a reasonable treatment modality for elderly patients with ESRD and that elderly patients with progressive renal failure should be considered as candidates for APD.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Chronic peritoneal dialysis patients diagnosed with clinical depression: results of pharmacologic therapy.

Depression has been documented as the most frequently encountered psychological problem in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients and has been correlated with both mortality and morbidity in these patients. Previous work by our group has shown that clinical depression is treatable with psychotropic medications in these patients, but that only a limited number of ESRD patients with depression will successfully complete a course of pharmacologic therapy. From July 1997 to October 2002, all chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients in our facility were encouraged to be screened for depression utilizing the self-administered Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) questionnaire. Based on previous work, a score > or =11 on this questionnaire was used to indicate a possible diagnosis of clinical depression; patients with BDI scores > or =11 were encouraged to complete a more formal evaluation for the presence of clinical depression. A total of 320 BDI questionnaires were completed during the study period: 134 patients. (42%) scored > or =11 on the BDI, 69 of the 134 patients (51%) with BDI scores > or =11 agreed to further evaluation. Sixty of these 69 patients (87%) were diagnosed with clinical depression based on scores > or =18 on the Hamilton Depression Scale and standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria. Forty-four patients with clinical depression agreed to pharmacologic treatment. However, only 23 of the 44 patients (52%) successfully completed a 12-week course of drug therapy. Two unit social work reviewers systematically reviewed the records of these 21 patients who did not complete therapy and assessed the reasons for their inability to complete treatment. Reasons identified included eight patients who experienced acute medical problems, three who were active substance abusers, and two who reported medication side effects. The remaining eight patients who did not complete the 12 weeks of therapy were examined by applying the axis 1 and axis 2 DSM-IV criteria. Axis 1 is used to diagnose clinical disorders and axis 2 is used to diagnose personality disorders. While all these patients met the DSM-IV axis 1 criteria for clinical depression, eight of these patients met axis 2 criteria for personality disorders; five patients had borderline personality disorders, one had a narcissistic personality disorder, one had a factitious disorder, and one had features of avoidant personality disorder. While some chronic PD patients can be successfully treated for clinical depression with psychotropic medication prescribed by the dialysis medical team, not all patients will agree to be evaluated for clinical depression and accept pharmacologic treatment. Others cannot or will not complete treatment when additional psychiatric disorders exist. These patients may require additional intervention when diagnosed with clinical depression and a personality disorder. Further trials are warranted.

Antidepressive Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Commentary: quality improvement projects: how do we protect patients' rights?

A recent ruling by the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) has renewed an ongoing debate over whether Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) should have oversight not only over clinical research but also over quality improvement projects (QIPs). The authors discussed the similarities and differences among clinical practice, QIPs, and clinical research, pointing out issues to consider when identifying the most appropriate method for QIP oversight and accountability. They note that potential solutions must address ethical issues (eg, patient safety, privacy, and self-determination) and weigh the effect of the underlying QIP goal (administrative versus clinical improvement) on an individual patient and patient populations. They conclude that because QIPs are an extension of clinical practice and have elements of clinical research, it too should have an oversight system. Institutional or regional quality improvement boards, operating parallel to current IRBs, are suggested as 1 means of ensuring that QIP participants are offered the same protections as those who take part in clinical research.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Patients' descriptions of specific factors leading to modality selection of chronic peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES: There has been increasing interest in understanding how patients with chronic renal failure choose between chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD) and hemodialysis (HD) for renal replacement therapy. The purpose of the present study was to examine the influences and specific factors that patients identify as significant in choosing a specific dialysis modality for treatment of their end-stage renal disease (ESRD). PATIENTS AND DESIGN: 40 patients (20 CPD, 20 HD) who had started dialysis within the preceding 6 months were randomly selected to participate in the study. A structured interview was conducted with the patients, discussing and exploring what factors patients thought were important in helping them decide their treatment modality. The format of the interview was open-ended. Based on patients' comments, a taxonomy of the specific factors that influenced the patients' decisions was developed. SETTING: The study was conducted in a freestanding CPD unit and two freestanding HD units. RESULTS: All 20 CPD patients reported choosing their treatment modality; only 8 of the 20 HD patients reported having a choice of treatment modality. 18 of the 22 patients who participated in predialysis educational programs opted for CPD. 83% of the patients reported that their physician was important in influencing their treatment choice; however, the CPD patients relied more on written material and the opinions of their spouse/significant other or other family members in making their decisions. Issues of autonomy and control were important for 95% of patients choosing CPD. Both CPD and HD patients cited a variety of treatment-specific factors. The three most frequently cited reasons for choosing CPD were (1) flexibility of schedule (19 patients), (2) convenience of performing CPD in their own home (19 patients), and (3) the option of doing dialysis at night while sleeping (8 patients). The 8 HD patients who selected their treatment modality cited the desirability of having a planned schedule (7 patients) and letting nurses or other take care of them (5 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The present study explored factors perceived by patients as being important in determining their choice of renal replacement therapy. A taxonomy of patient influences and concerns has been developed to provide caregivers with a framework to structure their educational strategies and assist patients with progressive renal failure in making an informed choice of therapeutic modality for their ESRD treatment.

Decision Making↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Increasing the dialysis volume and frequency in a fixed period of time in CPD patients: the effect on Kpt/V and creatinine clearance.

BACKGROUND: The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) has evidence- and opinion-based recommendations for weekly Kt/V(urea) and weekly total creatinine clearance (CC) in chronic peritoneal dialysis (CPD) patients. Using standard continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis technique, it is often difficult to achieve the suggested targets in anuric patients with large body mass. Thus, the use of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) has been increasingly utilized to achieve adequate clearances. Automated dialysis is usually performed at night over an 8- to 10-hour period. The role of increases in dialysate volume and frequency of exchanges during this time period to achieve these target K/DOQI recommendations remains uncertain. We decided to study the effects of increasing the volume and number of exchanges in a fixed period of time in CPD patients. METHODS: In the New Haven CAPD unit, 29 patients maintained on APD were considered eligible for the study and 11 agreed to participate. The patients were characterized according to standard peritoneal equilibration test criteria. The patients were placed into two groups: group 1 included high (H) and high-average (HA), and group 2 low-average (LA) transporters. The patients were dialyzed at night for 9 hours with standard cycling technique, using 2.5% Dianeal (Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, Illinois, USA) solution, with a cycle volume of 2,500 mL, and a 2,000-mL daytime dwell. Three studies were done on each patient using a total dialysis volume of 9.5 L (3 cycles), 14.5 L (5 cycles), and 19.5 L (7 cycles). Daily Kpt/V(urea) and daily CCp (peritoneal) (L/day/1.73 m2) were obtained. RESULTS: Six patients were H or HA (group 1) and 5 were LA transporters (group 2). For the group 1 patients, mean weight was 86.6 +/- 13.5 kg; Kpt/V(urea) was 1.68 +/- 0.21 using 9.5 L, 2.03 +/- 0.28 for 14.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 10 L), and 2.28 +/- 0.28 with 19.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 10 L and 15 L); mean weekly CCp was 45.43 +/- 7.63 L/1.73 m2 for 9.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 14.5 L and 19.5 L), 51.17 +/- 7.07 with 14.5 L, and 54.67 +/- 10.08 for 19.5 L; ultrafiltration rates were not different in the three studies. For the group 2 patients, mean weight was 74.3 +/- 17.7 kg; mean weekly Kpt/V(urea) was 1.68 +/- 0.35 using 9.5 L, 2.10 +/- 0.42 for 14.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 9.5 L), and 2.31 +/- 0.56 for 19.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 9.5 L and 14.5 L); mean weekly CCp was 42.56 +/- 10.64 L/1.73 m2 for 9.5 L (p < 0.05 compared to 14.5 L and 19.5 L), 50.89 +/- 12.66 for 14.5 L, and 51.94 +/- 11.20 for 19.5 L; ultrafiltration was lower in the 9.5-L study than in the 14.5-L and 19.5-L studies, but was not different in the 14.5-L and 19.5-L studies. CONCLUSIONS: In both H/HA and LA transporters, Kpt/V(urea) and CCp rise significantly when the frequency of exchanges and total volume of dialysate are increased. Thus, the use of larger volumes of dialysate with cycling peritoneal dialysis may result in increased clearances of urea and creatinine.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Recovery of renal function and the discontinuation of dialysis in patients treated with continuous peritoneal dialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with continuous peritoneal dialysis (CPD) have better preservation of endogenous renal function than patients treated with hemodialysis (HD). We wondered if this better preservation of endogenous renal function seen with CPD patients translates into the improved likelihood of recovery of endogenous renal function in those patients with potentially reversible causes of renal failure. METHODS: To evaluate this question, we reviewed the records of all 1200 patients that completed CPD training at a large, freestanding peritoneal dialysis center in New Haven, Connecticut, between 1979 and 1999, and the records of all patients completing CPD training in New England between 1993 and 1998. In New Haven, about half the new patients with ESRD were started on CPD compared to only 15% in New England. We then compared the chances of recovery of renal function in these two cohorts of CPD patients to the chances of recovery of renal function in two groups of HD patients. The first group consisted of all patients that started on HD in New England between 1993 and 1998. The second group consisted of all patients that started HD in our HD unit in New Haven, Connecticut, between 1993 and 1999. The data on the New England patients were provided by the ESRD Network of New England. All patients entered into the present study had to have been on dialysis for a minimum of 3 months, as in the United States Renal Data System database, and had to have recovered sufficient renal function to be able to be maintained off dialysis for a minimum of 30 days. RESULTS: 29 of 1,200 CPD patients (2.4%) trained in New Haven recovered sufficient renal function to permit the discontinuation of dialysis for a minimum of 30 days. In comparison, only 305 of 19,032 patients (1.6%) managed with HD in New England (p < 0.05 compared to New Haven CPD patients) and 3 of 430 patients (0.7%) in our HD center (p < 0.05 compared to New Haven CPD patients) recovered sufficient glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to allow the discontinuation of dialysis for at least 30 days. If only those CPD patients that initiated dialysis between 1993 and 1999 in New Haven were analyzed, 15 of 369 (4.1%) recovered sufficient GFR to allow discontinuation of dialysis for at least 30 days (p < 0.025 compared to both groups of HD patients). Of the 2,924 patients completing CPD training in New England, 60 (2.1%) recovered renal function; this percentage is not significantly different from the percent of HD patients in New England recovering renal function. CONCLUSION: Although the present study is a retrospective study and the actual criteria for selection of CPD and HD therapy are not controlled for, the data raise the question of whether there may be a therapeutic advantage to treating newly diagnosed ESRD patients, that have a potentially reversible cause of renal failure, with CPD.

Adult↗